Search form

In Scandalous Times, Bush Could Learn from Clinton

With the White House shrouded in scandal, the biggest obstacle
to George W. Bush’s political comeback is that he’s no Bill
Clinton.

The heaviest millstone around the president’s political neck
isn’t the case against Scooter Libby or the continuing
investigation into Karl Rove. Rather, it’s the growing public
perception that, unlike President Clinton in the 1990s, Bush is
presiding over an unsuccessful, even incompetent,
administration.

Scandal’s ability to upset the political apple cart is such that
some observers argue scandals are now the primary means through
which Americans engage in political conflict. What will be the
current scandal’s impact on the Bush presidency?

An especially bad omen is the effects of a serious political
scandal — which public opinion considers this one to be —
dissipate very slowly. When governments or government officials are
perceived to have violated the public trust, their transgressions
aren’t quickly forgotten.

In fact, some scandals resonate throughout our political culture
for several years. For example, pollsters found that the Watergate
scandal’s effect upon public opinion was still felt a decade after
Richard Nixon resigned from the presidency.

History also teaches us that a scandal’s presence applies
considerable downward pressure on a president’s approval ratings.
The mere perception of inappropriate behavior, not necessarily
actual wrongdoing, is frequently a catalyst for declining approval
ratings.

It’s rare for the public to separate a president’s professional
performance from his personal integrity. A president’s personal
integrity influences how he is evaluated and a scandal brings his
integrity into question. The average scandal depresses a
president’s approval ratings by nine to ten percentage points, and
with only a 39 percent approval rating according to a new
WashingtonPost/ABC News survey, President Bush clearly can’t afford
to take an average hit.

The most notable exception to the scandal effect is Bill
Clinton. His presidency remained popular despite the eruption of
the Monica Lewinsky scandal in February 1998. Gallup poll surveys
show support for his performance relatively high, although the
public was far more critical in its evaluation of his personal
qualities. By the 2000 election, Clinton’s approval rating stood at
57 percent while his personal approval was only 40 percent.

A comparison of the public’s contrasting reactions to the
Watergate and Lewinsky scandals provides further bad news for
President Bush. Why did so many more Americans support President
Nixon’s impeachment in 1974 than President Clinton’s impeachment in
1998?

The extent to which an administration suffers politically from a
scandal is determined largely by prevailing economic conditions. A
strong economy permitted a majority of Americans the luxury of
discriminating between Clinton’s job performance and his personal
integrity.

In 1998, Clinton benefited from the public’s perception that the
economy was in good shape, in sharp contrast to the public’s
perception of the economy in 1974. Most Americans wanted Richard
Nixon out of office for economic reasons, but most Americans wanted
Bill Clinton to remain in office for economic reasons.

Overcoming the political damage inflicted by a serious scandal
requires that the American people perceive both strong presidential
leadership and managerial competence in the Oval Office. The good
news, therefore, for President Bush may be found in the recent
lesson that peace and prosperity successfully blunted the Lewinsky
scandal’s impact upon the Clinton presidency.

Desperate to regain the political offensive, the White House
might find that an appropriate Supreme Court nomination and a
serious attack on a bloated federal government both prove to be
powerful weapons in Bush’s political arsenal.

Back in 2000, George W. Bush’s presidential campaign drew an
explicit contrast between its candidate’s high ethical standards
and Bill Clinton’s scandalous personal behavior. Five years later,
there is tremendous irony in the fact that President Bush, if his
second term agenda is to survive this scandal, needs to give
America a reason to rate his own presidency along Clintonesque
lines.